Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

If they had access to the same 3d modeling that we have now through Dale Meyers work, and able to sync all the films together to piece together the entire event, maybe it would seem easier for most to understand.

So when will you supply actual evidence the photos are fake? You keep saying it, and not agreeing with your cherry picked misunderstanding of witness statements still doesn't make it so.

Floyd Riebe, one of the official autopsy photographers, testified that "less than half the brain was there." Shown the official autopsy photographs of the brain that are currently at the National Archives, FBI agent Francis O'Neill, who witnessed the autopsy, claimed that the photogrpahs were inaccurate... "The official autopsy report documents the weight of the president's brain to be fifteen hundred grams, which is heavier than the average, complete human brain....

John stringer, the lead autopsy photographer, examined the autopsy photographs of the President's brain. He told the the Washington Post that the current pictures of the brain are not his and do not resemble anything he saw the night of the autopsy.

Why is this important? It shows that the Kennedy assassination evidence has been tampered with. Someone does not want the truth to be known.. -- Dr. Cyril Wecht in "Tales from the Morgue", p. 241

* * *

At every turn, the evidence ... simply does not add up to a lone gunman...Evidence is missing. Witnesses were asked to falsify affidavits. Testimony is dramatically altered. Documents are manipulated. What happend in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22nd, 1963 was an effort by two or more people to kill the president of the United States. What has happened since has been a conspiracy to hide the truth. -- Dr. Cyril Wecht in "Tales from the Morgue" Page. 243.

Conspiracy was proved in that the fatal shot came from the vicinity of the grassy Knoll.

My bold.

Assertion without proof. There is no proving something without proof.

Quote:

Some of the individuals involved were named. Who the actual shooters were from each location is a matter of hearsay and speculation. But the fact of conspiracy is well established and that is the main point of the thread.

There is no "fact of conspiracy" even remotely "established." I know you wish it more than life itself, but that's just too bad.

Assertion without proof. There is no proving something without proof.There is no "fact of conspiracy" even remotely "established." I know you wish it more than life itself, but that's just too bad.

The 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head along with the several close up Dealey plaza witnesses hearing and/or seeing a shot from the grassy knoll is proof of conspiracy.

The 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head along with the several close up Dealey plaza witnesses hearing and/or seeing a shot from the grassy knoll is proof of conspiracy.

You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face but the fact is that your list has been blown to pieces.

__________________"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait

...a drawing where he assumes lobes equate to regions of the head (though they do not equate directly to bones) and a drawing of a red arrow?

The illustration of a brain with no collocated cranium, no discussion or further reference to anatomical features, is misleading. Landmarks on the head are not given with respect to the brain, but to the bones of the cranium. The lobes of the brain are named for the cranium bone beneath which they most closely lie. But this does not mean that the occipital lobe of the brain defines the occiput of the head.

Further, the herniation of the cerebellum need not occur through the occipital bone, but would just as easily occur through a fracture in the temporal bone. The cerebellum actually lies farther superior than most people think, locating itself generally right behind the ear. Substantial injury to the occipital bone would most likely result in a missing cerebellum.

Note the cerebellum, the more finely crenellated region. Posterior to it, barely visible, is the lambdoid suture, which demarcates the temporal bone from the cranial occipital bone. Therefore a cranial would that extended "to the occiput" (but didn't include it) [Giesecke] would clearly expose the cerebellum and subject it to possible herniation.

The superior boundary of the temporal bone corresponds roughly with the top of the corpus colossum, the uncrenellated body at the center of the brain's bulk. The parietal bone continues to the top (vertex) of the cranium. The witness testimony I see in this thread identifies the

Quote:

My second thought: the extent of the wound described does not have to relate to the direction of travel as the arrow suggests.

Indeed I rather ignore the red arrow. It has been added perhaps as a suggestion of bullet path, but Robert gives no discussion.

The witness that Robert belabors for the word "occiput" is clearly describing the geometric extent of the wound he remembers: vertically from the vertex (i.e., the sagittal crest) to the ear (cf. the auditory foramen in my illustration), longitudinally from browline to occupit. None of the other three limits suggest significant encroachment, hence there is no reason to suppose that the physician here "really" means to say up to and including the occipital bone.

Others [Akins] describe "occipitalparietal," which is not strictly a region, but rather describes features that share the occipital bone and parietal bone in common, or describes the lateral extent of the lambdoid suture. This is still confined to the side of the head and still allows for herniation of the cerebellum. Robert does not properly interpret the medical terminology in terms of actual locations on the head.

One outlier [Jenkins] describes injury to the "temporal and occipital" in his initial report, but doesn't specify the injured regions in his lengthier testimony in 1964. We crave additional information because temporo-occipital identification is rare and comprises only a small portion of the cranium. It is odd for those two regions to be combined in the description of the site of an injury. But then Dr. Jenkins is an anesthesiologist, not a surgeon or orthopedist, hence he can be forgiven for misidentifying the site of the injury. We can expect him to be an expert in the anatomy of tracheal and bronchial tissues (i.e., for intubation), but not necessarily proficient in the fine positioning of cranial anatomy under duress. His sworn testimony describes significant "heat of battle" confusion, including uncertainty over the number, site, and appearance of injuries to the patient.

The 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head...

No, this has been thoroughly dissected. You don't seem very proficient at interpreting medical terminology.

Quote:

along with the several close up Dealey plaza witnesses hearing and/or seeing a shot from the grassy knoll...

I've spend considerable time in Dealey Plaza, with my good friends living in Dallas. I don't trust any witness's reliable estimation of where sounds there are coming from.

Quote:

...is proof of conspiracy.

No, it is at best demonstrations of inconsistency in the evidence, which you are using to try to erode faith in the widely-held Oswald hypothesis. The problem is why you think that such an erosion establishes any affirmation of a conspiracy. Show us evidence for the conspiracy, not just evidence away from Oswald. Until you can do that, you're just driving wedges into the inductive gap, and that's not science, history, or scholarship at all.

No, it is at best demonstrations of inconsistency in the evidence, which you are using to try to erode faith in the widely-held Oswald hypothesis. The problem is why you think that such an erosion establishes any affirmation of a conspiracy. Show us evidence for the conspiracy, not just evidence away from Oswald. Until you can do that, you're just driving wedges into the inductive gap, and that's not science, history, or scholarship at all.

A widely-held Oswald hypothesis?? Widely-held by whom? You? The Warren Commission? Surely not the American People. But then the validity of truth does not depend on opinion polls.

"Show us evidence for the conspiracy, not just evidence away from Oswald."

The evidence has been shown and laid bare for all who do not close their eyes and ears. Nor have I eliminated Oswald as a possible co-conspirator. Only that there is no evidence that he even fired a single shot.

Well, I guess that must undercut all of those TSBD shot witnesses as well.

Approximately how many witnesses thought they heard shots from the depository? Approximately how many witnesses thought they heard shots from the grassy knoll? Approximately how many witnesses thought they heard shots from an entirely different place altogether? Where were each of these witnesses standing? Run the numbers for us.

The problem with your handling of this type of testimony is that you think there can be no way to cut through the uncertainty endemic to the circumstances. You want to cherry-pick certain specific witnesses and listen to them only. I spoke of discounting the testimony of individuals without putting them in context. Put them in context. Then maybe a picture will emerge.

A widely-held Oswald hypothesis?? Widely-held by whom? You? The Warren Commission? But then the validity of truth does not depend on opinion polls.

I'm simply identifying the hypothesis.

Quote:

The evidence has been shown and laid bare for all who do not close their eyes and ears.

Please don't rely on accusing your critics of closed-mindedness, especially when so many of our questions go unanswered by you.

And please understand my quote. All you keep showing us is evidence away from Oswald: merely items you say are inconsistent with Oswald's purported actions. You don't show us any evidence for another testable hypothesis: items consistent with some other party's guilt. You will never have credibility without a plausible, well-defined affirmative claim. And you will never sustain any affirmative claim by simply eroding the lone gunman theory.

Quote:

Nor have I eliminated Oswald as a possible co-conspirator.

That's the problem: you haven't reached any conclusion. Everything is "may be" or "could possibly be." But you don't seem to be undertaking any exercise to actually test the information you develop. This is what differentiates JFK conspiracy theories from a real investigation. You seem to be prolonging the debate, not testing the claims.

The 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head along with the several close up Dealey plaza witnesses hearing and/or seeing a shot from the grassy knoll is proof of conspiracy.

As a layman I'm fairly impressed with the work of Dale Meyers with regard to his assassination animation. Best I can tell by the details he provides, the reconstruction seems rigorous and thorough. Am I right to consider it worthwhile? In other words, do you have any thoughts?

Why "only four challenges"? My initial response to the list discounted more than four of the statements Robert claims supports his views.

Sorry, but the majority of the list made statements that do not support or contradict Robert. Even his quotes about Reibe not identifying the photographs are from a secondary source, (and proving the photo of the brain was tampered with -distinctly different from proving it is not how a guy remembered it- does not prove all the photos were fakes.

And again, whose head is in the sand? Testemony doesn't meet my minimum standard of evidence. When is Robert going to show a photoartefact that is actual evidence of tampering, and not rely on people proved wrong by the physical evidence?

One can only assume that Robert knows what will convince me, knows he doesn't have it, but responds to my posts with more testemony (or in this case somebody elses discussion of testemony) because one day I will with out reason decide that enough people being mistaken will be even better than actual testable evidence?

Sorry. Physical evidence trumps subjective memory. Every time. With out actual physical proof the photos are faked, I have no reason to believe they are and that trumps a flawed human memory filteredby flawed human description and somebody elses interpretation. Every time.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

Why "only four challenges"? My initial response to the list discounted more than four of the statements Robert claims supports his views.

Sorry, but the majority of the list made statements that do not support or contradict Robert. Even his quotes about Reibe not identifying the photographs are from a secondary source, (and proving the photo of the brain was tampered with -distinctly different from proving it is not how a guy remembered it- does not prove all the photos were fakes.

And again, whose head is in the sand? Testemony doesn't meet my minimum standard of evidence. When is Robert going to show a photoartefact that is actual evidence of tampering, and not rely on people proved wrong by the physical evidence?

One can only assume that Robert knows what will convince me, knows he doesn't have it, but responds to my posts with more testemony (or in this case somebody elses discussion of testemony) because one day I will with out reason decide that enough people being mistaken will be even better than actual testable evidence?

Sorry. Physical evidence trumps subjective memory. Every time. With out actual physical proof the photos are faked, I have no reason to believe they are and that trumps a flawed human memory filteredby flawed human description and somebody elses interpretation. Every time.

And how would you know whether the photos are faked or not, if only relying on the faked photos?

Please don't rely on accusing your critics of closed-mindedness, especially when so many of our questions go unanswered by you.

And please understand my quote. All you keep showing us is evidence away from Oswald: merely items you say are inconsistent with Oswald's purported actions. You don't show us any evidence for another testable hypothesis: items consistent with some other party's guilt. You will never have credibility without a plausible, well-defined affirmative claim. And you will never sustain any affirmative claim by simply eroding the lone gunman theory.

That's the problem: you haven't reached any conclusion. Everything is "may be" or "could possibly be." But you don't seem to be undertaking any exercise to actually test the information you develop. This is what differentiates JFK conspiracy theories from a real investigation. You seem to be prolonging the debate, not testing the claims.

The information has been tested 9 ways to Sunday or perhaps more than 40 by the on the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head or in the alternative shots from the grassy knoll.

And how would you know whether the photos are faked or not, if only relying on the faked photos?

By photoartefacts in the photo that would be indicitive of tampering.

How do you know your cherry picked quotes are not misremembered if only relying on human memory?

Unlike human memories that are subjective, objective analysis is possible on the material evidence including photographic evidence. So far you have alleged, but yet to prove the z film and others were painted or altered, that the backyard photos were composites, or autopsy photos were "tampered with" and "smeered with morticians wax". No such editing is is perfect. All forms leave detectable traces. None of which you have identified to us.

Until you do so I for one have no reason to assume such tamperings took place, andrecognise that the human memory is prone to error and misinterpretation. Your witnessess are not validated by objective material evidence, ergo they are unvalidated.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

If the number depends on the counter it is not exact.
Lots is not an approximation either.

Could you try and actually Jays point please. It is somewhat essential to your case. Especially when the follow question of how many placed the shot as coming from elsewhere is asked, and the results compared. Not wanting to leap too far ahead.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

How do you know your cherry picked quotes are not misremembered if only relying on human memory?

Unlike human memories that are subjective, objective analysis is possible on the material evidence including photographic evidence. So far you have alleged, but yet to prove the z film and others were painted or altered, that the backyard photos were composites, or autopsy photos were "tampered with" and "smeered with morticians wax". No such editing is is perfect. All forms leave detectable traces. None of which you have identified to us.

Until you do so I for one have no reason to assume such tamperings took place, andrecognise that the human memory is prone to error and misinterpretation. Your witnessess are not validated by objective material evidence, ergo they are unvalidated.

If one were to try to enter the alleged autopsy photos into evidence in a criminal trail, such evidence would not be allowed unless a foundation were first laid as to the validity of the photos. How could that be possible when the creators of the originals deny that the ones in evidence are the ones they took. Thus, there is no way such photographic evidence would be allowed without such validation. So how do you know the photos are valid???

So around 40 of the nearly 300 witnessess apparently support the assertion that the shot came from the knoll. Even though many of those 40 have been shown not to support the claim, by their own testemony.

So less than 40 out of 300ish.

This is not going well fot the CT.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

If one were to try to enter the alleged autopsy photos into evidence in a criminal trail, such evidence would not be allowed unless a foundation were first laid as to the validity of the photos. How could that be possible when the creators of the originals deny that the ones in evidence are the ones they took. Thus, there is no way such photographic evidence would be allowed without such validation. So how do you know the photos are valid???

This is not a criminal trial. I see no judge. No grand jury. No court room.

How we know the autopsy photos are genuine was discussed at length already.
Either you have physical evidence to support your claims of fakery or not.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

Because a list of names is not supplying the base level of physical evidence you would require to convince me.

You realise, right of the bat, we have already shown you Sandra Spencer stated the photoswere not the ALTERED sanitised versions she developed. That does not support yourclaim, it infact shows the photos we have to be more accurate. Given that the only reason you would still include her on this list is to dishonestly represent her testemony, what credence do you assume that offers anybody else on that list?

Saying they dont remember taking the photos, or they developed a second set of photos is NOT supplying physical evidence the photos were faked. If the photos are faked why can't you show me the signs of fakery? Why do you have to rely on trying to force conclusions that your selected testemony wont support?

Because you can't.

Just admit you don't know how to show me what signs in the photographs might indicate fakery, or that you do know and can't find any. Stop trying to get me to accept a button as a dime.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

If one were to try to enter the alleged autopsy photos into evidence in a criminal trail, such evidence would not be allowed unless a foundation were first laid as to the validity of the photos. How could that be possible when the creators of the originals deny that the ones in evidence are the ones they took. Thus, there is no way such photographic evidence would be allowed without such validation. So how do you know the photos are valid???

Have any of your inept attempts at switching the burden of proof ever worked?

And how would you know whether the photos are faked or not, if only relying on the faked photos?

This was your homework question from months ago, that you refused to answer. There is an historical convention regarding the authenticity of artifacts and documents the burden of proof for forgery. I will renew my request that you research what that convention is, and why scholars in all fields choose to respect it.

As to how photo forgery is detected, there are many methods. Compositions are detected by otherwise unexplained discontinuities in any of the observable properties of the final image: optical density, detail, grain, contrast, illumination. Discontinuity is also apparent at the boundaries of the composition. Alterations are detected by observing other types of discontinuity, and also by artifacts such as negative damage, brushstrokes, and non-halide pigmentation. There are other methods that apply to digital photography, by they are irrelevant for allegations involving the Kennedy photos.

These methods have been applied to the Kennedy photos, but no sign of composition or alteration was detected. The allegations of composition and forgery by others are supported only by evidence developed by those proponents according to non-valid methods.

This was your homework question from months ago, that you refused to answer. There is an historical convention regarding the authenticity of artifacts and documents the burden of proof for forgery. I will renew my request that you research what that convention is, and why scholars in all fields choose to respect it.

As to how photo forgery is detected, there are many methods. Compositions are detected by otherwise unexplained discontinuities in any of the observable properties of the final image: optical density, detail, grain, contrast, illumination. Discontinuity is also apparent at the boundaries of the composition. Alterations are detected by observing other types of discontinuity, and also by artifacts such as negative damage, brushstrokes, and non-halide pigmentation. There are other methods that apply to digital photography, by they are irrelevant for allegations involving the Kennedy photos.

These methods have been applied to the Kennedy photos, but no sign of composition or alteration was detected. The allegations of composition and forgery by others are supported only by evidence developed by those proponents according to non-valid methods.

1. You are assuming that the bootleg photos in the public domain are the ones that were allegedly "examined".

and

2. You are also forgetting that while a photo may or may not be valid, it is the corpse itself that may be the object of fakery.

First, please don't rail-split my post. I'm asking you to consider the distribution of witnesses, so pulling out one of my three questions and answering only it fails to address my point.

Witnesses to brief, happenstance events tend to give testimony that's all over the map (no pun intended). So one of the first things we do is try to develop an understanding of the distribution of testimony. That's what I'm asking you to do here. Among the hundreds of witnesses in Dealey Plaza, who saw or heard what, where? Those who claim they heard or saw something at the grassy knoll -- do they represent a statistically significant minority? Did other people hear or see something from other non-TSBD locations?

In terms of investigation, there is always more happening than what you're interested in. That is, while the plane is crashing or the lady is being mugged, there are other unrelated events occurring that may catch witnesses' eyes. Similarly the arson investigator has to know that there were other things going on in the house besides the mechanism of ignition and combustion; he can't assume everything he runs across in the cinders is related to the alleged crime. The investigator must determine which of all witnesses reports and evidence are related to the event he's investigating and which are not.

Second, why would it depend on who's counting? Is the number uncertain, or does some of the witness testimony require interpretation?

Because a list of names is not supplying the base level of physical evidence you would require to convince me.

You realise, right of the bat, we have already shown you Sandra Spencer stated the photoswere not the ALTERED sanitised versions she developed. That does not support yourclaim, it infact shows the photos we have to be more accurate. Given that the only reason you would still include her on this list is to dishonestly represent her testemony, what credence do you assume that offers anybody else on that list?

Saying they dont remember taking the photos, or they developed a second set of photos is NOT supplying physical evidence the photos were faked. If the photos are faked why can't you show me the signs of fakery? Why do you have to rely on trying to force conclusions that your selected testemony wont support?

Because you can't.

Just admit you don't know how to show me what signs in the photographs might indicate fakery, or that you do know and can't find any. Stop trying to get me to accept a button as a dime.

Hey, let's get one thing straight. I have no desire nor any hope of convincing you of anything. My only purpose is to point out the facts, and how you and other Lone Nutters deny them.

And In a court of Law, or for that matter in the Court of Public Opinion, before you can offer any opinions at all as to a photo, you must bear the burden of proof that the photo is valid. You have not done that. JayUtah has not done that. No one has anyone done that, but those in involved in the process declare all of the photos in evidence as Fraud. End of story.

And In a court of Law, or for that matter in the Court of Public Opinion, before you can offer any opinions at all as to a photo, you must bear the burden of proof that the photo is valid. You have not done that. JayUtah has not done that. No one has anyone done that, but those in involved in the process declare all of the photos in evidence as Fraud. End of story.

Have any of your inept and clumsy attempts to shift the burden of proof ever worked?